Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Morge, R (on the application of) v Hampshire County Council.

Country/Territory
United Kingdom
Type of court
National - higher court
Date
Jun 10, 2010
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
Court of Appeal
Seat of court
London
Judge
Ward
Hughues
Patten.
Reference number
[2010] EWCA Civ 608
Language
English
Subject
Wild species & ecosystems, Legal questions
Keyword
Land-use planning Protection of habitats Protected plant species Protected animal species Protected fish species Protection of species
Abstract
The present Court of Appeal’s decision has clarified the extent of protection afforded to European protected species. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a decision of a Deputy High Court Judge in which he refused to quash a decision of Hampshire County Council to grant planning permission for a Bus Rapid Transit scheme providing a dedicated bus link between Gosport and Fareham.The Claimant contended that the Council had not fulfilled its obligation to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive when granting planning permission. The Claimant contended that the protection afforded by Article 12(1)(b) of the Directive (deliberate disturbance of these species) was engaged as the proposed scheme would involve the destruction of foraging habitat and would introduce buses in area used by bats for crossing from a roost to foraging area. The Court of Appeal held that the loss of habitat does not itself fall within Article 12. The Court held that the occasional death of a bat should it be unable to take evasive action from large lighted buses will be a trivial disturbance not having a negative impact on the species as a whole so as to have any ecological importance. The Claimant contended that Article 12(1)(d) of the Directive was engaged as potential bat roosts would be destroyed and as bats arriving at a leaving an existing roost would be adversely affected by passing buses. The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments holding that Article 12(1)(d) requires strict protection of defined elements of the habitat namely actual breeding sites and resting places. The Court of Appeal also rejected the Claimant’s challenge to the Council’s decision that the proposal did not amount to EIA development for the purposes of the EIA Directive.